The agroecological revolution in Latin America

28 Pages·2011·0.69 MB·English

This article was downloaded by: [Mr Saturnino M Borras JR]
On: 09 July 2011, At: 01:27
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Peasant Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20
The agroecological revolution in Latin
America: rescuing nature, ensuring
food sovereignty and empowering
peasants
Miguel A. Altieri & Victor Manuel Toledo We would like to thank
the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions. We also thank the students of the Latin American
Agroecology Doctoral Program at the Universidad de Antioquia
for their comments and insights on various topics covered in the
manuscript.
Available online: 08 Jul 2011
To cite this article: Miguel A. Altieri & Victor Manuel Toledo We would like to thank the two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank the students
of the Latin American Agroecology Doctoral Program at the Universidad de Antioquia for their
comments and insights on various topics covered in the manuscript. (2011): The agroecological
revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants,
Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:3, 587-612
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
1
1
0
2
y
ul
J
9
0
7
2
1:
0
at
]
R
J
s
a
r
r
o
B
M
o
n
ni
r
u
at
S
r
M
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
TheJournal of PeasantStudies
Vol.38, No. 3,July2011, 587–612
The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature,
ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants
Miguel A. Altieri and Victor Manuel Toledo
This paper provides an overview of what we call ‘agroecological revolution’ in
LatinAmerica.Astheexpansionofagroexportsandbiofuelscontinuesunfolding
1 inLatin Americaandwarmingthe planet,theconcepts offoodsovereignty and
01 agroecology-based agricultural production gain increasing attention. New
y 2 approachesandtechnologiesinvolvingtheapplicationofblendedagroecological
ul scienceandindigenousknowledgesystemsarebeingspearheadedbyasignificant
9 J numberofpeasants,NGOsandsomegovernmentandacademicinstitutions,and
0 theyareprovingtoenhancefoodsecuritywhileconservingnaturalresources,and
7
2 empowering local, regional and national peasant organizations and movements.
1: AnassessmentofvariousgrassrootsinitiativesinLatinAmericarevealsthatthe
0
at application of the agroecological paradigm can bring significant environmental,
] economicandpoliticalbenefitstosmallfarmersandruralcommunitiesaswellas
R
J urbanpopulationsintheregion.Thetrajectoryoftheagroecologicalmovements
as in Brazil, the Andean region, Mexico, Central America and Cuba and their
r
r potential to promote broad-based and sustainable agrarian and social change is
o
B briefly presented and examined. We argue that an emerging threefold
M ‘agroecological revolution’, namely, epistemological, technical and social, is
o creating new and unexpected changes directed at restoring local self-reliance,
n
ni conservingandregeneratingnaturalresourceagrobiodiversity,producinghealthy
ur foods with low inputs, and empowering peasant organizations. These changes
Sat directly challenge neoliberal modernization policies based on agribusiness and
r agroexports while opening new political roads for Latin American agrarian
M
[ societies.
y
d b Keywords:agroecology, peasant agriculture,food sovereignty, Latin America
e
d
a
o
nl
w Introduction
o
D Agroecologyisprovidingthescientific,methodologicalandtechnologicalbasisfora
new ‘agrarian revolution’ worldwide (Altieri 2009, Wezel and Soldat 2009, Wezel
etal.2009,FergusonandMorales2010).Agroecology-basedproductionsystemsare
biodiverse, resilient, energeticallyefficient, socially just and comprisethe basis ofan
energy, productive and food sovereignty strategy (Altieri 1995, Gliessman 1998).
Agroecological initiatives aim at transforming industrial agriculture partly by
transitioning the existing food systems away from fossil fuel-based production
largely for agroexport crops and biofuels towards an alternative agricultural
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions. We also thank the students of the Latin American Agroecology Doctoral
Programatthe UniversidaddeAntioquiafor theircommentsandinsightsonvarioustopics
covered in themanuscript.
ISSN0306-6150print/ISSN1743-9361online
!2011Taylor&Francis
DOI:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947
http://www.informaworld.com
588 Miguel Altieri and Victor Manuel Toledo
paradigm that encourages local/national food production by small and family
farmersbasedonlocalinnovation,resourcesandsolarenergy.Thisimpliesaccessof
peasants to land, seeds, water, credit and local markets, partly through the creation
of supportive economic policies, financial incentives, market opportunities and
agroecological technologies.
The keyideaofagroecologyistogobeyond alternativefarmingpracticesandto
developagroecosystemswithminimal dependenceonhighagrochemicalandenergy
inputs. Agroecology is both a science and a set of practices. As a science,
agroecologyconsistsofthe‘applicationofecologicalsciencetothestudy,designand
management of sustainable agroecosystems’ (Altieri 2002). This implies the
diversification of farms in order to promote beneficial biological interactions and
synergies among the components of the agroecosystem so that these may allow for
the regeneration of soil fertility, and maintain productivity and crop protection
1 (Altieri 2002). The core principles of agroecology include recycling nutrients and
1
0
2 energy on the farm, rather than introducing external inputs; enhancing soil organic
uly matterandsoilbiologicalactivity;diversifyingplantspeciesandgeneticresourcesin
9 J agroecosystemsovertimeandspace;integratingcrops andlivestock andoptimizing
7 0 interactions and productivity of the total farming system, rather than the yields of
2 individual species (Gliessman 1998). Sustainability and resilience are achieved by
1:
0 enhancing diversity and complexity of farming systems via polycultures, rotations,
] at agroforestry, use of native seeds and local breeds of livestock, encouraging natural
R
J enemies of pests, and using composts and green manure to enhance soil organic
s
a matter thus improving soil biological activity and water retention capacity.
r
r
o There are alternative farming systems that are significantly different from
B
M agroecological approaches. For example, organic farming systems managed as
o monoculturesthatareinturndependentonexternalbiologicaland/orbotanical(i.e.
n
ni organic) inputs are not based on agroecological principles. This ‘input substitution’
r
u approach essentially follows the same paradigm as conventional farming: that is,
at
S overcomingthelimitingfactorbutthistimewithbiologicalororganicinputs.Many
r
M ofthese‘alternativeinputs’havebecomecommodified,thereforefarmerscontinueto
[
y bedependentoninputsuppliers,cooperativeorcorporate(RossetandAltieri1997).
b
d Wearguethatorganicfarmingsystemsthatdonotchallengethemonoculturenature
e
d of plantations and rely on external inputs as well as on foreign and expensive
a
o
nl certification seals, or fair trade systems destined only for agro-export, offer little to
w small farmers who in turn become dependent on external inputs and foreign and
o
D volatile markets. Keeping farmers dependent on an input substitution approach,
organic agriculture’s fine-tuning of input use does little to move farmers toward the
productive redesign of agricultural ecosystems that would move them away from
dependenceonexternalinputs.Niche(organicand/orfairtrade)marketsfortherich
in the North exhibit the same problems of any agro-export scheme that does not
prioritizefoodsovereignty(definedhereastherightofpeopletoproduce,distribute
and consume healthy food in and near their territory in an ecologically sustainable
manner), often perpetuating dependence and at times hunger (Altieri 2009).
Agroecology is highly knowledge-intensive, and is based on techniques that are
not delivered top-down but developed on the basis of farmers’ knowledge and
experimentation. For this reason agroecology emphasizes the capability of local
communities to experiment, evaluate, and scale-up innovations through farmer-to-
farmer research and grassroots extension approaches. Technological approaches
emphasizing diversity, synergy, recycling and integration, and social processes that
The Journal of Peasant Studies 589
valuecommunityinvolvement,pointtothefactthathumanresourcedevelopmentis
the cornerstone of any strategy aimed at increasing options for rural people and
especially resource-poor farmers (Holt-Gimenez 2006). It is also in this context that
agroecology promotes community-oriented approaches that look after the sub-
sistence needs of its members, emphasizing self reliance, thus the usual presence of
community grain banks. It is also an approach that very much privileges the local:
providing for local markets that shorten the circuits of food production and
consumption, and hence avoid the high energy needs of ‘long-distance food’.
Agroecological systems are deeply rooted in the ecological rationale of
traditionalsmall-scaleagriculture(Toledo1990,Altieri2004)andthereareexamples
of a myriad of successful agricultural systems characterized by a tremendous
diversityofdomesticatedcropandanimalspeciesmaintainedandenhancedbysoil,
water and biodiversity management regimes nourished by complex traditional
1 knowledge systems (Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008). Such agricultural systems
1
0
2 not only have fed much of the world population for centuries and continue to feed
uly peopleinmanyparts ofthe planet,especially in developing countries, butalso hold
9 J many of the potential answers to the production and natural resource conservation
7 0 challenges affecting today’s rural landscapes (Koohafkan and Altieri 2010).
2 In this overview paper we will briefly examine the fundamental reasons why the
1:
0 promotionofanagroecologicalparadigmbasedontherevitalizationofsmallfarms
] at and social processes that value community involvement and empowerment is the
R
J onlyviableoptiontomeettheregion’sfoodneedsinthisageofincreasingoilprices
s
a andglobalclimatechange.Wewillalsobrieflylookintothesocio-ecologicalfeatures
r
r
o and significance of peasant agriculture, and review the impacts that hundreds of
B
M agroecology-based projects in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Central America and the
o Andean region have had on the environment, food production and rural social
n
ni movements. We end by making some reflections on the triple dimensions of the
r
u agroecological revolution, namely, cognitive, technological and social, which
at
S combined partly gave birth to new modes of communication between activism and
r
M science, a process that according to Martinez-Alier (2011) has reached global
[
y proportions as agroecology has been incorporated in the vision of La Via
b
d Campesina, today’s most important transnational agrarian movement.
e
d
a
o
nl
w The context of the food crisis in the twenty-first century
o
D Poverty reduction and food security are elusive goals for at least one billion people
on the planet. The high levels of hunger, the inequity in the distribution of income,
land, water, seeds and other resources, in addition to ecological degradation, are
persistent and increasing problems at the global level. Despite billions of dollars
investedin‘aid’,‘development’,and‘technologicaladvances’,thesituationforthese
marginalized people has not improved, and in fact it is getting worse. There is no
doubt that the increasing cost of energy, and the deterioration of the climate and
global ecology are key factors that undermine the capacity of humankind to feed
itself based on an industrial model of agriculture that is highly dependent on fossil
fuel. The limits and vulnerability of the industrial model of agriculture are largely
due to its low ecological diversity and narrow genetic base. Global food security
could be considered the weak link between the ecological and economic crises
affecting the planet. This became evident when the ‘perfect storm’ occurred in
2007–08 withthealarmingriseinthecostoffoodthatsentanadditional75million
590 Miguel Altieri and Victor Manuel Toledo
people to the world’s line of hungry people, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and
Asia. Oddly, there had been no drought – the usual cause of hunger – in those
regions during that period and there was plenty of food in the markets. ‘For no
obvious reason the price of staple foods such as maize and rice nearly doubled in a
few months ... There were food riots in more than 20 countries and governments
had to ban food exports and subsidize staples heavily’ (Vidal 2011; see also Holt-
Gimenez and Patel 2009).
TheexplanationofferedbyFAOisthatlargefarmersintheUS,Brazilandother
countrieshadtakenmillionsofacresoflandoutofproduction togrow biofuelsfor
vehicles, oil and fertilizer prices had risen steeply, the Chinese were shifting to a
meat-based diet from a vegetarian diet, and climate change-linked droughts were
affecting major crop-growing areas.1 The same year (2008) that hunger expanded,
cereal yields reached unprecedented levels, and the merchants of grain (e.g. Cargill,
1 ADM) and corporate agricultural input and seed providers like Monsanto reaped
1
0
2 enormous profits. A huge part of the problem is linked to the deregulation of
uly international commodity markets, the privatization and/or elimination of grain
9 J markets in some countries, and recently the entry of speculative capital into the
7 0 commoditiesmarket.Thesamebanks,hedgefundsandfinancierswhosespeculation
2 ontheglobalmoneymarketscausedthesub-primemortgagecrisisarethoughttobe
1:
0 causing food prices to inflate. Between January 2006 and February 2008, financial
] at investmentspushedthepricesofmanyfoodcropstohighervaluesthanthosecrops
R
J would have normally reached (Kaufman 2010). Contracts to buy and sell foods
s
a (cocoa, fruit juices, sugar, staples, meat and coffee) have been ‘turned into
r
r
o ‘‘derivatives’’ that can be bought and sold among traders who have nothing to do
B
M with agriculture’ (Hari 2010).
o Foodpricescontinuetorisebeyond2008levels.Theyarenowrisingbyupto10
n
ni percent ayear, and some predict that it ispossible that they can increaseby at least
r
u 40 percent in the next decade (Rosset 2009). Each time food prices increase, a
at
S significant number of family and peasant farmers are expelled from the market due
r
M tothelowpricethattheyreceivefortheirproducts,andinpartduetothehighcost
[
y ofinputs,principallyfertilizers.Meanwhilethecostoffoodforconsumersincreases
b
d independently from what the price of wheat, corn or rice may be in the global
e
d commodity markets. In this way the deregulated market, privatization and free
a
o
nl market treaties negatively affect both small farmers and consumers (Vidal 2011,
w Inter-American Dialogue 2011). The situation is aggravated by the systematic
o
D elimination of national production capacity by the promotion of agroexports and
biofuels, partly stimulated by government subsidies. Another complicating factor is
thelandgrabbingledbygovernmentssuchastheGulfStatesandChinaandwealthy
investors who buy or lease land on an immense scale for intensive agriculture for
offshorefoodandbiofuelproduction.2Intheendthenewcrisisisjustanewfaceof
the old rural crisis derived from the almost total control of the food system by
transnational capital aided by neoliberal programs implemented by some govern-
ments (Rosset 2009).
Wearguethatthatthethreatoffoodinsecurityisthedirectresultoftheindustrial
model of agriculture characterized by large-scale monocultures of transgenic crops,
1FAO Initiative on Soaring Food Prices, available from: http://www.fao.org/isfp/about/en/
under global foodprice monitor [Accessed 10April2011].
2For moreinformation see http://farmlandgrab.org/.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 591
and that agrofuels exert pressures on increasingly degraded ecosystems further
underminingnature’scapacitytosupplyfood,fiberandenergytoagrowinghuman
population.Thetragedyofindustrialagricultureisthatagrowinghumanpopulation
depends on the ecological services provided by nature (e.g. climate balance,
pollination, biological control, soil fertility) which intensive industrial agriculture
increasingly pushes beyond thetipping point (Perfecto etal. 2009).
Traditional peasant agriculture: the roots of the agroecological proposal
Well into the first decade of the twenty-first century, there are 1.5 billion
smallholders, family farmers and indigenous people on about 350 million small
farms(ETC2009).Itmaybeextremelydifficulttoestablishtheactualnumbers,but
some estimate that approximately 50 percent of these peasants use resource-
1 conservingfarmingsystems–representingatestamenttotheremarkableresiliencyof
1
0
2 traditional agroecosystems in the face of continuous environmental and economic
uly change – while contributing substantially to food security at local, regional and
9 J national levels (Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008). For these reasons most
7 0 agroecologists acknowledge that traditional agroecosytems have the potential to
2 bring solutions to many uncertainties facing humanity in a peak oil era of global
1:
0 climate change and financial crisis (Denevan 1995, Altieri 2004).
] at Although traditional agroecosystems dotting the rural landscapes of the region
R
J evolved in different contexts and geographical areas, such systems exhibit several
s
a common remarkable features (see Figure 1): (1) high levels of biodiversity that play
r
r
o key roles in regulating ecosystem functioning and also in providing ecosystem
B
M services of local and global significance; (2) ingenious systems and technologies of
o landscape, land and water resource management and conservation that can be used
n
ni to improve management of agroecosystems; (3) diversified agricultural systems that
r
u contributetolocalandnationalfoodandlivelihoodsecurity;(4)agroecosystemsthat
at
S exhibitresiliencyandrobustnessincopingwithdisturbanceandchange(humanand
r
M environmental), minimizing risk in the midst of variability; (5) agroecosystems
[
y nurtured by traditional knowledge systems and farmers innovations and; technol-
b
d ogies and (6) socio-cultural institutions regulated by strong cultural values and
e
d collective forms of social organization including normative arrangements for
a
o
nl resource access and benefit sharing, value systems, rituals, etc. (Dewalt 1994,
w Koohafkan and Altieri 2010).
o
D Food systems based on local circuits of peasant agroecological production and
local consumption differ sharply from the industrial food chains. See Table 1 for a
comparative perspective.
Many traditional small farmers tend to adopt a strategy of multiple use of
natural resources, creating landscape mosaics of rich biological diversity (Toledo
1990).Atthefieldlevel,oneofthesalientfeaturesofpeasantfarmingsystemsistheir
high degree of plant diversity in the form of polycultures and/or agroforestry
patterns.Thisstrategyofminimizingriskbyplantingseveralspeciesandvarietiesof
crops stabilizes yields over the long term, promotes diet diversity and maximizes
returns even with low levels of technology and limited resources. Such agro-diverse
farms are endowed with nutrient-enriching plants, insect predators, pollinators,
nitrogen-fixingandnitrogen-decomposingbacteria,andavarietyofotherorganisms
thatperformvariousbeneficialecologicalfunctions.Traditionalagroecosystemsalso
contain populations of variable and adapted landraces as well as wild and weedy
592 Miguel Altieri and Victor Manuel Toledo
1
1
0
2
y
ul
J
9
0
7
2
1:
0
at
]
R Figure1. Remarkable features andservices of peasantagriculture.
J
s Source:Koohafkan andAltieri (2010).
a
r
r
o
B
M
o
n
ni Table 1. Some major differences between industrial and agroecology-based peasant food
r
u systems.
at
S
r Industrial foodsystems Agroecological peasantfood systems
M
[
y Agroexportcrop andbiofuel Local,regional and/ornational food
d b production, thousands of foodmiles, production, localproduction and
e major emissions ofgreenhouse gases consumption circuits
d
a Focusonlessthan20livestockandcrop More than40livestock species andthousands
o
nl species ofedible plants
w
Large-scale monocultures Small-scale diversifiedfarming systems
o
D High yielding varieties, hybrids and 1.9 millionland races andlocal cropvarieties
transgenic crops
High petroleumdependence and Localresources, ecosystem services provided
agrochemical inputs bybiodiversity
Fertilizersforcropnutrition(tofeedthe Plant- andanimal-derived organicmatterto
plants) feedthe soil
Topdown,technicistextensionschemes, Campesinoa Campesino (farmerto farmer),
corporatecontrolledscientificresearch localinnovations, socially-oriented
horizontalexchanges via social movements
Narrow technologicalknowledge of Holistic knowledge of nature, cosmovision
parts
Inserted in simplified, degraded natural Inserted in complex nature’s matrixthat
matrix non-conducive to conservation providesecological services toproduction
of wildspecies systems(i.e. pollination, biological pest
control, etc.)
Source:modifiedfromRossetetal.(2011)andETC(2009).
The Journal of Peasant Studies 593
relatives of crops. Such genetic diversity provides security to farmers against
diseases,pests,droughtsandotherstressesandalsoallowsfarmerstoexploitthefull
range of agroecosystems existing in each region that display differences in soil
quality,altitude,slope,wateravailability,etc.Geneticdiversityheightensstabilityof
the cropping systems and enables farmers to exploit different microclimates and to
derive multiple nutritional and other uses from the genetic variation among the
species (Chang 1977, Clawson 1985).
At the landscape scale, diversification occurs by integrating multiple production
systems to form mosaics of cropping systems with livestock, fallow fields, and
agroforestrysystemstocreateahighlydiversepieceofagriculturallandimmersedin
a matrix of primary or secondary forests (Perfecto et al. 2009). Such heterogeneity
confers stability and resiliency to the systems.
Many traditional systems have stood the test of time, documenting a successful
1 and resilient indigenous agricultural strategy and representing models of sustain-
1
0
2 abilityastheypromotebiodiversity,thrivewithoutagrochemicals,andsustainyear-
uly roundyields(Brokenshawetal.1980).FormorethanthreedecadesLatinAmerican
9 J agroecologists have argued that modern farming systems will necessarily have to be
7 0 rooted in the ecological rationale of indigenous agriculture and that promising
2 agricultural pathways, modeled after traditional farming systems, can help in the
1:
0 design of a biodiverse, sustainable, resilient and efficient agriculture.3
at
]
R
J
s Latin America: food, peasants and agroecology
a
r
r
o Both global and internal forces are challenging the ability of Latin America to feed
B
M itself while redefining the significance and the role of the agricultural sector, which
o has historically been of a dual nature. On the one side there is a specialized,
n
ni competitive export-oriented agricultural sector which makes a significant contribu-
r
u tiontothenationaleconomies,whilebringingavarietyofeconomic,environmental
at
S and social problems, including negative impacts on public health, ecosystem
r
M integrity,andfoodquality,andinmanycasesdisruptingtraditionalrurallivelihoods
[
y while accelerating indebtedness among thousands of farmers. The growing push
b
d towardindustrializationandglobalizationwithitsemphasisonexportcropssuchas
e
d transgenic soybeans for cattle feed for countries such as China, Europe, the USA
a
o
nl and others, and the rapidly increasing demand for biofuel crops (e.g. sugar cane,
w maize, soybean, oil palm, eucalyptus) are increasingly reshaping the region’s
o
D agriculture and food supply, with yet unknown economic, social and ecological
impacts and risks (Pengue 2009).
On the other hand, there is a peasant or small farm sector with a population
estimated at about 65 million, including 40–55 million indigenous people speaking
about 725 languages (Toledo et al. 2010). Based on estimates a decade ago, these
peasant small farming systems (average size of 1.8 hectares) produce 51 percent of
the maize, 77 percent of the beans, and 61 percent of the potatoes consumed in the
region(Ortega1986,Altieri1999).InBrazilalone,thereareabout4.8millionfamily
farmers(about85percentofthetotalnumberofagriculturalproducers)thatoccupy
3See publications by several Latin American agroecologists from CLADES (Centro Latino
Americano de Desarrollo Sustenable (http://www.clades.cl/publica/publica_index.htm) and
issues of LEISA Revista de Agroecologı´a (http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/
latin-america).
594 Miguel Altieri and Victor Manuel Toledo
30percentofthetotalagriculturallandofthecountry;theycontrolabout33percent
of the area sown to maize, 61 percent of that under beans, and 64 percent of that
plantedtocassava,thusproducing88percentofthetotalcassavaand67percentof
all beans (Altieri 1999). In Ecuador, the peasant sector occupies more than 50
percent of the area devoted to food crops such asmaize, beans, barley and okra. In
Mexico, peasants occupy at least 70 percent of the area cultivated to maize and 60
percent of the area under beans (Altieri 1999).
The Latin American peasantry is a highly heterogeneous group both culturally
and ecologically, representing a gradient from subsistence farms based on local
resourcesandagroecologicaltechniquestosemi-commercialandcommercialfarmers
usingagrochemicalinputsandlinkedtonationalandinternationalmarkets.Thusin
one region it may be possible to find farmers still involved in a pure form of
traditional agriculture all the way to peasants that have partially or totally adopted
1 theagro-industrialmodeofproduction.ThosepeasantsinFigure2thathavemoved
1
0
2 beyond ‘stage 6Ag’ in their conversion to the agroindustrial model have modified
uly their system so profoundly (i.e. adopted specialized monocultures with hybrids of
9 J high energy and input dependence) that a reconversion to agroecological manage-
7 0 ment may prove very difficult or impossible (when reaching stage ‘9Ag’). Most
2 farmers situated between 0Ag and 5Ag incorporate varying elements of agroecolo-
1:
0 gical management, thus comprising a myriad of community-based agriculture
] at systems that offer promising models for promoting biodiversity, sustaining yield
R
J without agrochemicals, and conserving ecological integrity while making a
s
a substantialcontributiontodomesticfoodsecurity.AsshowninFigure3,agroecology
r
r
o can provide farmers, depending on their location along the modernization gradient
B
M (but not beyond stage 8Ag), with guidelines for the transition towards a more
o sustainable agriculture. Farmers in stages 0Ag and 1Ag can without much support
n
ni from agroecology, using traditional indigenous technical knowledge transition
r
u directly toa sustainable rural society.
at
S Despite much debate about the relationship between farm size and productivity
r
M (Dyer 1991, Dorward 1999), agroecologists have shown that small family farms are
[
y muchmoreproductivethanlargefarmsiftotaloutputisconsideredratherthanyield
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
Figure 2. Characteristics of peasant agriculture in a gradient from traditional to
agroindustrial modesof production.
Source: Toledo (1995).